Mitt Romney

Trump attacked MITTens manhood.... Romney has a grudge, he chose to leek at this from left field.

Yes, it does.  He believes that Trump used the power of the presidency and its purse strings In an attempt to coerce a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival. 

That concept is valid but in reality there were multiple caveats. First being that the Bidens should have been investigated. There almost certainly was corruption there. Second, it was a feeble and aborted attempt at coercion. Third, the target of the coercion apparently didn't even know he was being  - in theory - "coerced". Fourth, the purported threats were never carried out.
 You cannot have a quid-pro-quo when the "quid" is freely given and the target was never aware that a "quo" was required.


Given all that, the vote to aquit is reasonable and logical. But Romney voted on the principle. alone. Romney is an honorable and decent guy who does not need or evidently want to compromise his principles to achieve political influence. So, yeah, it does indicate a theoretical - if circumscribed - validity to the charges...............................................Luca

Is validity "assumption" or "hearsay"? I still have my ear on what Dershowitz is now being burned at the stake for claiming in that every political occupier of any office has in the back of his mind is his or her opposition or challenger. It simply is human nature and political behavior. What is still missing here is a CRIME! Basically the Bidens, likely were doing or close to if you want to presume they are innocent, yet enough so that some intervention by our government or sitting President was probably appropriate and because it happened to be someone potentially becoming your political opponent must you stand down, sit on your hands for fear of having or being accused of having another motive, one that is personally beneficial should you find the person committing a crime. I guess from everything I have seen, Trump should have recluse himself from his office on this matter?

One of my neighbors used to do business with Mitt Romney. That neighbor was a garrulous, profane, talk-out-of-the-side-of-your-mouth aggressive Chicago type. But when I asked him his opinion of Romney years ago he became quiet and respectful, saying "He's just a..... a..... gentleman." He didn't think Romney would be successful as a president because he wouldn't respond in kind when things got ugly.

Romney's been a very successful business guy, an excellent organizer and evidently a good father and husband. He's given away lots of money to charity and you don't see any tabloid stories about him.

So, yeah, I think he's a decent and honorable guy. Decent guys can have perspectives different than mine and it doesn't mean they're indecent. He felt that Trump's effort to get the Biden's investigated – even if the attempt was aborted and there were no consequences - was inappropriate, a bad precedent, and should be recognized as such.

He's entitled to that opinion. I think it's defensible and carries some weight.......................Luca

If he had aligned himself with that group he would have voted for both motions. The distance between Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi versus Mit Romney is pretty substantial.

I don't think he ruined his legacy, such as it is, either. I don't know if he particularly cares about that. I think history will see him as someone who was alarmed by the precedent that was set by Trump's effort and was willing to go out on a limb to condemn it knowing that his vote was both symbolic and futile, and that he would get criticized for it.........................Luca

I was stuck in a situation yesterday where I had to listen to 790 KABC-AM conservative talk radio for over two hours. I caught the last hour of one host's show and the first hour of the next one. Both of them spent the entire time I was listening to railing about what a traitor Mitt Romney is. The second host even called him a "despicable P.O.S." They ranted about how his statements, his vote and his position meant nothing, and that we was nothing more than a narcissist with a huge ego who was preening for the media and "spreading his peacock feathers".

I couldn't help but think about the hypocrisy. These two hosts are both ardent supporters of President Trump. Given that, how can they possibly criticize another politician for being narcissistic, being egotistical, preening or spreading his peacock feathers, when Trump embodies more of those four traits than any president we've ever had?

It's a good example of how most of us see faults in others that we can't see or refuse to acknowledge in ourselves.